A journey through art and history

Posts Tagged ‘Politics’

I used to answer telephone calls directed for my husband. The caller would settle for my opinion should he be away. Sometimes a parent of a prospective student called. I could reassure and offer to schedule my home and tour, or explain why hot water was in the toilet in the dorms. If you have followed this blog, you may have read about some creative ideas I come up with.

Late one night, the caller identified herself as a White House scheduler for President Nixon. I was friends with her parents and other family members. But this was a business call for my husband. Not finding him, she asked for my opinion.

Nixon was looking for an African-American (assumed to be male) who had two Ph.ds. One degree in Biophysics and the other in Psychology. My initial reaction was what? Yes, in the ’70s more advanced degrees were being earned by African-Americans, both male and female. But it would narrow the field. It seemed a curious combination, but what did I know?

After sharing my confusion, I assured her it would be better to contact John in his office. i also said, in my opinion, this would be a difficulr search.

I did understand the value Nixon hoped to get. He wanted to understand how his pronouncements would be processed. His headlines on the front pages of newspapers (google ‘newspapers’), in the strongest way, told readers what he would do. Then, near the obituaries, a much smaller article would describe how Nixon would take the opposite position.

This allowed President Nixon to do either of these things. If your were for the first action, you were satisfied. Also the opposite action. This left it so one or neither action could be taken wiithout too much dissent.

This was my opinion and now it helps me understand current politicians and their inconsistent promises. One way to keep the masses happy.

The territories that were at one time or another part of the British Empire. The British Overseas Territories are underlined in red. Русский: Территории, когда-либо бывшие частью Британской империи. Названия Британских заморских территорий подчеркнуты красным. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Just asking

Looking up the definition is a bit daunting. The imperfectness of the English language can add to confusion. On top of that, we change the use and meaning of words.

I remain confused on flammable and inflammable. Understanding the root of a term may not help. The preceding ‘anti’ should mean against

I will not name the accuser who states with no factul basis that the President learned ‘anti colonial’ ideas from his Kenyan father. That charge is in keeping with recent accusations against Hillary Clinton‘s staff member. Representative Bachmann has written and said that this woman has unacceptable leanings learned, presumably, from her deceased father.

Forgetting any facts of how and when the Obamas were in a position to influence each other, what is so wrong about anti colonial beliefs?

Was the British Empire not a major colonial power? Did it not conquer and control countries around the world? What about the history of the Americas, India, Australia, the carving up of the Near East?

The British controlled the seas and followed the long historic tradition: win a war, demand bounty, and place the territory under the control of the conquerors. It was one way to fill treasuries. Diversity and tribal increase were the result of stealing women to be wives. A cow or gold dowry could be demanded or just kidnap the women. The more ‘civilized’ these conquerors, the better jobs were possible for sons who would not inherit.

Some good came to individuals in this power dance. No matter. Because the system was defective. Britain was forced to renegotiate the terms of the colonial relations. The carving up of countries in the Middle East is still being negotiated as more people wish to determine their own fates.

The United States has had its colonial periods. One might consider the treatment of Native Americans terrible but it does not follow the traditional colonial pattern. What about Texas? The Phillipines? Puerto Rico?

And then there was the second World War. Germany was conquered. The country was divided among the conquerors. What did we do in our part? We used the Marshall Plan to rebuild for the conquered people! We spent precious resources to find art stolen and hidden by the Nazis. Over the years we returned their precious history. Had we learned another way to leave people with their dignity, national pride and the ability to support their families? We even offered our land and work for many to relocate to freedom.

The first use of this war-ending by America might have been the Civil War. General Robert E. Lee and the South were left with their dignity and welcomed back into the union.

My point is that the United States has moved away, officially from reducing countries and adversaries to utter dependency. We tell ourselves that we want to help peoples to attain their freedoms and that we do not aspire to take them over. We have evolved to pursue our most exemplary goals.

So what is the issue against Obama? Are his critics aspiring toward true colonial control over others? Do they stand for colonial dominance to boost our primacy? Who are these people and what power do they have to govern here? Are we willing to follow their footsteps with our young men and women soldiers?

We had a mini picture of how well we can manage diverse and conquered countries. Our second level managers went to a beaten Iraq and they did poorly.

If I am not mistaken, anti colonial policies sound like the strategy we should continue to pursue. Is that the policy of the President? I do not know. It worked for our separation from Britain* and respects the self-determination rights of all.

*Note:

I asked to have this post reviewed for factual details and this is the response.

“Nicely done. In the part about the British Empire, you might want to mention that these United States were once British colonies and liked it not. The American revolution is undoubtedly one of the biggest “anti-colonial” statements ever made. So, anti-colonialism is a proud American tradition that President Obama can justifiably embrace.“

When voting started in America, it was not for everyone. It was not for me until women got the right to vote, well after Black men. Even they could not vote in the beginning. Not all white men could vote: one had to own land.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 wiped away laws preventing or discouraging people from using their voting rights. When you think the War between the States ended in 1865, it was a good but not timely thing. Blood and tears have been shed to get the right to speak on who and how government will be run.

And so tomorrow, the people in selected states will have the opportunity to take charge of their citizenship through the voting booth. One vote can count when combined with others.

Each President must make decisions that affect all citizens. He or she meets with people who have no political clout as well as foreign leaders. We are not ruled by royalty or a dictator.

Even the current President has learned that his words can create havoc when not measured.

Can candidates, regardless of party, talk with foreign officials if their language is vague? Sometimes it is necessary to research a word or phrase to understand the candidate’s meaning. Other times, there could be no explanation.

Herman Cain drifted off when questioned about foreign countries. We are asked to understand why Michigan trees are perfect. (more…)